There are so many things that have to work exactly right in order to successfully land a conventional aircraft on a ship that it is almost amazing that they can do it at all.  Automatic landing systems help a little, but there will always be at least some bolters.

 

Besides, in order for that design to work the ship would have to be longer because the launching and landing operations can not share deck space.

I think you need to at least double the number of F-35C's.  The E-2D's are major strategic asset that an enemy would want to eliminate, so you would probably want to at least a pair of fighters with each one at all times for protection.  You would probably need four E-2D's for reliable around the clock coverage, requiring that at least 6 of the 8 F-35C to be assigned exclusively to this mission.  This leaves you without a strike element.

Outside of that, you're really starting to look at a change in mission set - and with only a percentage of the absolute utility of an autonomous and fully effective battle group/task force.

The reason additional A-4's were bought for the RAN FAA in the 70's was so the Trackers could be landed and Melbourne could be employed as a Strike carrier with an airgroup of 16 Skyhawks and several SeaKings when circumstances required.

 

What is interesting is HMAS Sydney (III) was still in commission at this point and could have been employed as an ASW Helicopter Carrier in support of HMAS Melbourne when she was operating in the strike role, not that it ever happened.

 

This raises the concept of two similar ships being paired, one operating as a CVA and the other as a CVS, they would be able to cross deck in an emergency with each being able to better perform their specialised task.  A further extension on this line would be to include a LPH version as well, three ships, three different but complementry roles.

That is simple

A carrier can be as long as the landing track of actual smallest carriers.

French Cdg CVN use a 195 m landing track and accept F18 or Rafale (and E2).And it is the smallest carrier able to accept such planes.

A carrier can be as long than that so 200 meters, which would be about 20 000 tons carrier (and no angle deck), but it has to be fitted with a stabilisation system to operate at least in 5 sea state.

A landing track in the ship axis, is not a problem if you have only 8 F-35C (or similar) and 2-4 E-2D  to park outside and in the hangar.

However remember E2D cost a lot and it makes few sense to have 4 or them on a small carrier.

4 E2D would cost as much than the carrier it self if you include price of mid life refit.

France paid 1,3 billion US$ 3 E2C with support included.

Minimum size for a CTOL carrier.

 

Without repeating others to much there does come a point of diminished returns.  3-6 fighters really isnt worth the effort. The RN got away with the invincibles simply because of the harrier - the invincible class were not really designed to be carriers in the truest sense.

 

My view is smallest practicale size for a  CTOL carrier is about 35000 tonne see the Ark royal she operated Bucs and phantoms (although i believe this could be a bit tight) I see no reason that a reasonably sized airgroup of F35 couldnt be operated off a platform this size.

 

F18s like bucs and phantoms may be interesting.

Minimum size for a CTOL carrier.

 

Without repeating others to much there does come a point of diminished returns.  3-6 fighters really isnt worth the effort. The RN got away with the invincibles simply because of the harrier - the invincible class were not really designed to be carriers in the truest sense.

 

My view is smallest practicale size for a  CTOL carrier is about 35000 tonne see the Ark royal she operated Bucs and phantoms (although i believe this could be a bit tight) I see no reason that a reasonably sized airgroup of F35 couldnt be operated off a platform this size.

 

F18s like bucs and phantoms may be interesting.

Would an alternate hull form, i.e. BMT's Pentamaran, allow a smaller displacement design better meet the prerequisite requirements of length and stability, while providing greater hanger capacity.  A multi hull may be able to fit a parallel deck to allow simultanious launch and recovery.

 

Would it be possible for a 25-30000t pentamaran carrier with EMAL cats to operate a reasonable number of F-35C / F/A-18E/F.

Would an alternate hull form, i.e. BMT's Pentamaran, allow a smaller displacement design better meet the prerequisite requirements of length and stability, while providing greater hanger capacity.  A multi hull may be able to fit a parallel deck to allow simultanious launch and recovery.

 Would it be possible for a 25-30000t pentamaran carrier with EMAL cats to operate a reasonable number of F-35C / F/A-18E/F.

I assume that someone in Qinetic has the keys to the safe on those designs.  I remember one of the maritime engineers who gave the briefing indicating that they also had plans to a multi 65,000 tonne design.

they were damn ugly vessels though.

My Bad Ark Royal was 45K+ post refit and was just able to operate Bucs and Phantoms - I dont know if this was an option Pre Refit.

 

Probably could go smaller on a CTOL JSF though - Its not like 1 engine inop capability is going to be a factor.